Final_Review_3513 - Final Review 3513 Chapter 15-19 Chapter 15 1. Task-intrinsic Feedback Sensory-perceptual information/feedback that is a natural part
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 20 pages.
Skill mastery in sports is often thought to result from motor acquisition processes in which the learner has gained the ability to cope with performance errors on a functional level. Performance errors may not only occur on different stages of the skill acquisition process, but they may also stem from ...
Skill mastery in sports is often thought to result from motor acquisition processes in which the learner has gained the ability to cope with performance errors on a functional level. Performance errors may not only occur on different stages of the skill acquisition process, but they may also stem from different influences such as inadequate methodical progressions (i.e., moving too fast from step to step), or dysfunctional feedback information given by the practitioner (i.e., focusing on dysfunctional aspects). Augmented feedback, however, is often generated on the basis of visual observations of the skill to be mastered and the underlying (mental) representations of the teacher/coach. In these observations the coach or teacher usually tries to identify the performance errors and the error causes prior to generating feedback for a particular athlete or pupil. Research in sports and physical education settings has focused on the content and structure of feedback while error detection and identification was somewhat neglected. While it is commonly accepted that augmented feedback is essential for motor skill acquisition and mastery, the question arises which perceptual-cognitive processes underlie error detection and identification and thus lead to a particular feedback which in turn may lead to a successful skill performance. From this point of view research related to assimilation of information (which should optimize performance control) as well as feedback should be stepped up. This may especially be questionable in physical education settings where the teacher has to deal with heterogeneous groups of pupils of different age and sex who differ in aspects such as experience or coordinative ability. The research topic thus addresses perceptual-cognitive processes that may underlie error detection and identification in physical education settings in a multidisciplinary framework. Manuscripts discussing empirical studies in light of different theoretical backgrounds (i.e., direct and indirect perception) and utilizing different methodical approaches (i.e., quantitative: eye-tracking, temporal and spatial occlusion, decision making tasks, biomechanical analyses; qualitative: interviews, questionnaires) are strongly requested in order to approach the question of the Research Topic. Contributors may also submit discussions on best-practice models or single-case studies.
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
Adams, J. A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 111–150.
Article Google Scholar
Barros, J. A. C., Yantha, Z., Carter, M. J., Hussein, J., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2019). Examining the impact of error estimation on the effects of self-controlled feedback. Human Movement Science, 63, 182–198.
Article Google Scholar
Bauer, J., Gartmeier, M., & Harteis, C. (2012). Human fallibility and learning from errors at work. In J. Bauer & C. Harteis (Eds.), Human Fallibility (pp. 155–169). Springer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Bauer, J., & Harteis, C. (2012). The ambiguity of errors for work and learning: Introduction to the volume. In J. Bauer & C. Harteis (Eds.), Human Fallibility (pp. 1–14). Springer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Bilodeau, E. A., Bilodeau, I. M., & Schumsky, D. A. (1959). Some effects of introducing and withdrawing knowledge of results early and late in practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 142–144. //doi.org/10.1037/h0040262
Article Google Scholar
Bril, B., Roux, V., & Dietrich, G. (2005). Stone knapping: Khambhat (India), a unique opportunity? In V. Roux & B. Bril (Eds.), Stone knapping: The necessary conditions for a uniquely hominid behavior (pp. 53–72). McDonald Press.
Google Scholar
Bril, B., Smaers, J., Steele, J., Rein, R., Nonaka, T., Dietrich, G., Biryukova, E., Hirata, S., & Roux, V. (2012). Functional mastery of percussive technology in nut-cracking and stone-flaking actions: Experimental comparison and implications for the evaluation of the human brain. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society: Biology, 367, 59–74. //doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0147
Article Google Scholar
Bril, B. (2015). Learning to use tools: A functional approach to action. In L. Fillietaz & S. Billet (Eds.), Francophone perspectives of learning through work: Conceptions, traditions and practices (pp. 95–118). Springer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Carter, M. J., Carlsen, A. N., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2014). Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance: A replication and extension of Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005). Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1325. //doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01325
Article Google Scholar
Chen, D., Hendrick, J. L., & Lidor, R. (2002). Enhancing self-controlled learning environments: The use of self-regulated feedback information. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 43(1), 69–86.
Google Scholar
Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2002). Self-controlled feedback: Does it enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 408–415. //doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2002.10609040
Article Google Scholar
Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2005). Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 42–48. //doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2005.10599260
Article Google Scholar
Department of Training and Workforce Development. (2008). Basic manual metal arc welding. Accessed 2019/7/28 Retrieved from //www.dtwd.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/teachingproducts/ENG722_CCBY.PDF
Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Brooks and Cole.
Google Scholar
Grand, K. F., Bruzi, A. T., Dyke, F. B., Godwin, M. M., Leiker, A. M., Thompson, A. G., Buchanan, T. L., & Miller, M. W. (2015). Why self-controlled feedback enhances motor learning: Answers from electroencephalography and indices of motivation. Human Movement Science, 43, 23–32. //doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.06.013
Article Google Scholar
Guadagnoli, M. A., & Kohl, R. M. (2001). Knowledge of results for motor learning: Relationship between error estimation and knowledge of results frequency. Journal of Motor Behavior, 33, 217–224.
Article Google Scholar
Harteis, C., Bauer, J., & Heid, H. (2012). Research on human fallibility and learning from errors at work: Challenges for theory, research, and practice. In J. Bauer & C. Harteis (Eds.), Human Fallibility (pp. 255–265). Springer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Hogan, J. C., & Yanowitz, B. A. (1978). The role of verbal estimates of movement error in ballistic skill acquisition. Journal of Motor Behavior, 10, 133–138.
Article Google Scholar
Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2008). The effectiveness of error management training: A meta-analyses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 59–69.
Article Google Scholar
Kent, M. (2006). The Oxford dictionary of sports science and medicine (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Khodadost, H., Zareian, E., Arani, H. K., Nosh-abadi, R. N., & Mashreghi, R. A. (2015). Effect of two types of feedback and error estimation on error detection capability in continuous tracking task. Biological Forum - an International Journal, 7(1), 198–204.
Google Scholar
Lazaro, R. T., Reina-Guerra, S. G., & Quiben, M. (2013). Umphred’s neurological rehabilitation (7th ed.). Elsevier.
Google Scholar
Liu, J., & Wrisberg, C. A. (1997). The effect of knowledge of results delay and the subjective estimation of movement form on the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68(2), 145–151.
Article Google Scholar
Magill, R. A. (1994). The influence of augmented feedback during skill learning depends on characteristics of the skill and the learner. Quest, 46, 314–327. //doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1994.10484129
Article Google Scholar
Magill, R. A. (2001). Augmented feedback in motor skill acquisition. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 86–114). Wiley.
Google Scholar
Magill, R. A., & Anderson, D. I. (2017). Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Google Scholar
Mononen, K. (2007). The effects of augmented feedback on motor skill learning in shooting: A feedback training intervention among inexperienced rifle shooters. University of Jyväskylä.
Google Scholar
Reed, E. S. (1993). The intention to use a specific affordance: A conceptual framework for psychology. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 45–76). Lawrence Erlbaum associates.
Google Scholar
Safir, O., Dubrowski, A., Hui, Y., Backstein, D., & Carnahan, H. (2010). Self-directed practice scheduling is equivalent to instructor guided practice when learning a complex surgical skill. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 792–796. //doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.105
Article Google Scholar
Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A., & Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 9(5), 355–386.
Article Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Phycological Review, 82(4), 225–260.
Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Motor learning principles for physical therapy. In M. Lister (Ed.), Contemporary management of motor control problems: Proceedings of the II STEP conference (pp. 49–64). Foundation for Physical Therapy.
Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. A. (2003). Motor schema theory after 27 years: Reflections and implications for a new theory. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 366–375.
Article Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (1999). Motor control and learning: A behavioural emphasis. Human Kinetics.
Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. A., Lee, T. D., Winstein, C. J., Wulf, G., & Zelaznik, H. N. (2018). Motor control and learning (6th ed.). Human Kinetics.
Google Scholar
Sharma, D. A., Chevidikunnan, M. F., Khan, F. R., & Gaowgzeh, R. A. (2016). Effectiveness of knowledge of result and knowledge of performance in the learning of a skilled motor activity by healthy young adults. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 28(5), 1482–1486. //doi.org/10.1589/jpts.28.1482
Article Google Scholar
Swinnen, S. P. (1990). Interpolated activities during the knowledge-of-results delay and post-knowledge-of-results interval: Effects on performance and learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 692–705. //doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.692
Article Google Scholar
Swinnen, S. P., Schmidt, R. A., Nicholson, D. E., & Shapiro, D. C. (1990). Information feedback for skill acquisition: Instantaneous knowledge of results degrades learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 706–716. //doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.16.4.706
Article Google Scholar
Wulf, G. (2012). Motor Schema. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer. //doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_870
Chapter Google Scholar
Wulf, G., & Shea, C. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 185–211. //doi.org/10.3758/BF03196276
Article Google Scholar
Wulf, G., Shea, C., & Lewthwaite, R. (2010). Motor skill learning and performance: A review of influential factors. Medical Education, 44, 75–84. //doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03421.x
Article Google Scholar
Page 2
From: Effects of Augmented Feedback with Error Self-estimates on Vocational High School Students’ Motor Skill Learning
Experimental | O | X1 (O1, O2, O3, O4, O5, O6, O7, O8, O9) | O | O |
Control | O | X2 (O1, O2, O3, O4, O5, O6, O7, O8, O9) | O | O |
- aAugmented feedback provided on the 1st,4th and 7th trials during practice for both groups; at these three points, the experimental group additionally self-estimated their errors after receiving the augmented feedback, while the control group did not